A lot of what we have discussed so far in this class is the immense power that words and language have on everything around us. From the influence of bias and connotations, to the control of authors over their characters, vernacular seems to hold a great deal of importance. But what about when language is inadequate?
It is impossible to quantize human emotion. Words try to get the job done, they they just fall short. For instance, when someone says "I love you", you cannot truly comprehend the extent of the reverence they have towards you. Many of our relationships, on all sorts of levels, fail due to the simple fact that words cannot explain perception. At least with "facts" we have tangible (to an extent) evidence of what one is saying.
Thoughts?
(Taylor)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
While I suppose that words cannot truly express our feelings, language remains the main method of communication. It is impossible for other people to share your same exact extensional world (love, hate, etc). Yet we still use language and symbols because, frankly, we don't have any other methods.
Facts aren't the be all end all. Saying "I love you" is still far more effective than saying, "A group of neurotransmitters including dopamine (also activated by cocaine and nicotine), norepinephrine, and serotonin are released in a biochemical response to positive interhuman relationships."
Language exists to simplify and to allow everyone (or almost everyone) to access the records of various extensional worlds. From the whole "Columbus thought the world was flat" thingy to the vernacular Bible translations to our national anthem in English/Spanish/Esperanto/Elvish, language has always explained a perception, however biased or loaded.
P.S. Besides, what exactly is so bad about bias? It makes life so much more interesting.
There are so many things wrong with bias! There are myriad reasons, of course; for instance, it prevents us from seeing the world as it truly exists.
Besides, a difference in perception can be extremely dangerous, especially if one doesn't recognize that it's there. For example, if someone says to you, "I love you", they might really mean, "I love you like a brother/sister." If you, however, take it to mean, "I love you and I want to marry you", then all sorts of problems could arise, not to mention a really creepy relationship.
(Okay, Grace, I guess I just proved your point; that would be very very interesting.)
-Paige Walker-
Well Hayakawa never said that words were emotions; he merely observed that words are symbols for our emotions. These symbols, in turn, stimulate cooperation in societes.
If a couple was unable to exchange words such as "I love you" or "Will you marry me?", how would they be identified as lovers, fiances, etc...? Korzybski was correct in stating that symbols are man's greatest invention. We thrive, flourish, and advance due to the symbolic process.
"But the symbolic process, which makes possible the absurdities of human conduct, also makes possible language and therefore all the human achievements dependent upon language" (Hayakawa 16).
Without language and the words of which it is composed, we would be more at a loss for certain expression than we currently are already. Language is a system of agreement, and a simple exchange of verbal symbols establish vast amounts of common ground, the sharing of information, etc...
Do actions really speak more loudly than words?
(Samantha Maliha)
Language is the creation of humans who are always subject to making errors.
Hayakawa points out that the definition of a word comes from the collective analysis of the contexts in which the word was used and, therefore, the definition stands at the highest level of abstraction. So I believe that just by using the word doesn't express the emotion that the person is trying to describe.
In order to make the listener understand the speaker's emotion more easily, the speaker should let the listener be aware of the context that he is using, and most time the context can be found in the speaker's action.
Also, what’s wrong with the inadequacy/connotations of the words? Honestly, I find it very helpful sometimes that words can have different meanings and connotations so that I can use them to keep good relationships with people. For example, someone can say “You look like a grown-up” to a friend who is wearing khaki pants with a flowery blouse. The friend would interpret the comment as a compliment while the speaker was probably saying, “Why in the world are you wearing those clothes that even my grandma wouldn’t?”
In this case, although the words did not describe true intentions, they helped to keep a positive relationship. So not all cases in which the words fail to explain the perception is detrimental in terms of keeping a good relationship with someone.
(Jennifer Park)
The comments posted thus far seem to emphasize a slight contradiction that exists in the semantic world: language is such a powerful tool, yet oftentimes the language we use cannot express our strongest perceptions and emotions.
Has anyone else noticed this contradiction? It truly confuses me. What is the reason for such "shortcomings of language," as Taylor puts it? Are these shortcomings more a result of the weakness of language or are they more a result of the unavoidable existence of varying perceptions?
Moreover, it appears as if there is nothing that we can do about such limitations of language, since we cannot alter the essence of language, nor can we alter peoples' perceptions. Or is there a way to overcome such limitations?
Thoughts? I am quite thoroughly confused.
(Janet Lee)
In response to your comment, Janet, I think that language is the best tool humans have to communicate, in spite of all the flaws you listed. Until the day comes when people can simply project images into each other's minds, I think that biases are an unavoidable part of using language. Even the use of languages like E-Prime contain unavoidable biases (not to mention that it's really annoying to use).
However, I believe that words themselves are less flawed than the humans who use them. English itself contains only limited amounts of so-called "loaded" words, for example, but people can twist those words however they choose.
So, in the meantime, until we get rid of all prejudice, I guess we're going to have to stick to smoke signals.
-Paige Walker-
"Or is there a way to overcome such limitations?" (Janet)
I highly doubt such a thing is possible. Changing our language and the bias embedded within it ultimately alters our state of being. Changing the way you communicate changes who you are, your true self.
If an individual were to assume a different type of language at will, the audience would have an idea of who that person wishes to be or be associated with. In simpler terms, if Susie imitates Beth's verbal mannerisms, it becomes obvious that Susie wishes to become more like Beth. This is part of her inner persona.
Am I..making sense? I realize that chain of thought is hard to follow.
(Sam Maliha)
After reading the above comments I've come to see the inadequacy of language to a degree. It is useful up to the point of abstraction where we attempt to communicate something that is not being experienced extensionally. The phrase "The dog is black" is a perfectly effective means of communication that gets the point across and can be referenced by actually looking at the dog extensionally. But when we try to express abstractions like "Love", the fallacy occurs due to the lack of any extensional grounds and thus different interpretations result.
Steve Szumski
If Susie imitates Beth, does she really have to possess the desire to seem like Beth? We all imitate each other to some degree, because we have a tendency influence others and be influence ourselves. After all, won't you pick up a foreign language by being immersed in it while living abroad? You will imitate the locals (And thus their language) because everyone realizes, to an extent, that language is essential to everyday life. Yes, it is inherently flawed as it is an invention of human beings but as most people have noted, it's really our best bet. After all, we all know that standardized tests are hardly an accurate assessment of our abilities, which is why college applications are so all-encompassing these days. Yet, standardized testing is still in place because it is still one of the easiest and most efficient ways to get a quick look at a student's academic capabilities. Language and testing both possess the necessary standardization for efficient communication.
Though I have been wondering if faulty communication actually arises purely from our respective biases and different intensional worlds. It is undeniable that the two play significant parts, but can't it be the fault of the versatility of the English language? For instance, no matter what side of the family she is on or whether she is older or younger than your father/mother, you aunt is always called "aunt". In Chinese, and I'm sure many other languages have similar cases, there is a definitive difference between the title of your mother's younger sister and your father's older sister. Coming back to love, isn't our issue with love both its intangibility (And thus disconnect with the extensional world) as well as the wide expanse of situations to which it can be applied? This is why qualifiers and context are so important, as they provide specificity which in turn cuts down on the variance in perception.
"Isn't our issue with love both its intangibility (And thus disconnect with the extensional world) as well as the wide expanse of situations to which it can be applied?" (Tiffany)
I understand and agree with this speculation to the fullest extent. Indeed, Taylor introduced us to this notion of the "intangibility" of love in his post, and Paige's first comment contains a good example of the "wide expanse of situations" to which love may be applied. That is, she differentiated between brotherly/sisterly love and love between couples.
I do, however, have a question regarding Tiffany's last sentence: "This is why qualifiers and context are so important, as they provide specificity which in turn cuts down on the variance in perception."
Does the word "perception" as used in this sentence refer to the ways that people may personally perceive what a certain emotion such as "I love you" means? There are many different ways that the word "perception" can be used, so I simply wanted to clarify. I think I agree with that last sentence as well. :)
Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
Is there a way to reach a higher plane of connection? When you and another person truly agree, really click, on some sort of strong passion, there is an unspoken bond there. A bond which, perhaps doesn't need to be filled with language. This is all a bit trippy, but consider the energy transferred between two beings without the use of language. One can understand how, for example, the connection of love with another person exists in its purest nature, even if they'd never experienced or even considered the concept of "love" before.
Is there a more powerful way to communicate?
(taylor)
"I do, however, have a question regarding Tiffany's last sentence: "This is why qualifiers and context are so important, as they provide specificity which in turn cuts down on the variance in perception."
Does the word "perception" as used in this sentence refer to the ways that people may personally perceive what a certain emotion such as "I love you" means?"
(This is all from Janet's last post)
I think that what Tiffany is saying (or at least my interpretation of it) is that for example, if I say "I love that so much." That's pretty general. What's "that" and what do I mean by love? Different people might perceive or think that I mean different things by that sentence. But, if I were to say, "I love that sweater" the listener, whoever he or she may be, will most likely assume that I don't want to marry the sweater, but rather that I like it a lot. With more details the statement becomes more specific and more people will agree on the meaning.
I hope that's helpful(?).
(Emily T.)
Thanks, Emily, your comment was helpful!
Concerning Taylor's comment:
I don't believe that there is "a more powerful way to communicate," yet I cannot think of specific evidence that proves this. Does this mean that I should not be making this assumption?
I agree with the observation that, sometimes, certain unspoken bonds "magically" form between two people in agreement or in understanding. However, should such an UNSPOKEN bond be considered "communication"? I guess this would depend on how we choose to define the word "communication"- and we're back to definitions. But if such bonds do NOT really fall under the category of communication, then how do we explain them?
Confused yet again,
Janet Lee
While I do not believe words can be used to replace actually feeling the emotion, they're the best we've got. Words have come about to be used to apply to a very general feeling. So is what the brother and sister and the couple feeling love? Yes.
However, there is no one "love". (Sorry Marley) Like Jennifer highlighted, "Hayakawa points out that the definition of a word comes from the collective analysis of the contexts in which the word was used and, therefore, the definition stands at the highest level of abstraction." To understand the type of love, we must lower the abstraction.
Does language fail us in that it cannot accurately describe how we feel? Of course! But should we be angry and shake fists at it? Probably not. Every person does not feel the same thing. Even if everyone is feeling "love" there is the branch of love (brother/sister, amorous) then the reason the love is felt, the connection with the person, the list of unique circumstances for each existence of "love" could go on and neither two experiences of the word would be the same. That means there would have to be a word or phrase for every situation. And to communicate that love to another person would be almost impossible if they are not experiencing your brand of love. To make things less complicated, we simply use the word love. And this applies to any emotion.
So why don't you marry it?!,
Megan West
'That means there would have to be a word or phrase for every situation. And to communicate that love to another person would be almost impossible if they are not experiencing your brand of love.'
I have to agree with Megan's statement here. Not only are there different types of each emotion but also different degrees. For example, I can be displeased, ticked off, or furious. It is impossible to convey your exact feelings to someone who is not able to be in the exact situation you're in.
I guess this really goes back to what Sam said a while ago. Actions really do speak a lot louder than words. I'm sure that someone would have some idea of the intensity/type of feeling I had if I kicked a wall and started cursing.
More powerful form of communication will be the combo of language+action.
Remember, context is all that matters. Without the context, people can interpret the same word in many,many different ways.
Say you buy the sweater soon after you exclaimed "OMG I love that!!"
The listener will be able to distinguish your meaning of 'love' in this case from when you used the word 'love' the day before when you gave a hug to your mama.
(Jennifer Park)
Post a Comment